Skip to comments.Texas Governor says US should use troops in Mexico drug war
Posted on 10/02/2011 4:45:25 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The US government should consider sending troops to Mexico to combat drug-related violence, Texas Governor Rick Perry, who is seeking the Republican nomination for US president, said Sunday.
"It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these
At present Barack Obamas administration is providing serious financial support to Mexican security services, while the security services of two countries are closely cooperation, Radio Liberty reports.
(Excerpt) Read more at english.ruvr.ru ...
I wouldn’t put one single soldier in Mexico. I would put as many as necessary on the border and give them whatever they needed to stop illegal immigration.
CW: Please don’t lie about what you posted in #5 (above).
THIS is what you wrote to Admin:
“You’re posting to counter effective dissemination of information”
NOT THIS (which is Post 5)...
“Your purpose for posting on this thread is to disrupt effective dissemination of information.”
Accusing someone of disrupting a thread is a SERIOUS OFFENSE and you are now lying about what you actually posted (psst., there is a written record of it).
Please, hang it up and play by the rules. I fully understand the need for Perry’s people to “control the social media” and they have a lot but money to work with. But please consider that there are lots of people on this site, probably a majority now, that DO NOT LIKE PERRY and I’m sorry, but they will reply as they see fit, as you guys keep flooding us with new puff pieces.
Oh good grief.
Fight like a man.
“Where have I EVER asked someone to shut up or anything of the kind.”
When you accuse someone of disrupting a thread. That’s no different than telling him to shut up and get lost. If you want to keep posting for Perry, go ahead - but many, many, people here are now sick of him and if you are going to try to silence them, I’m going to defend them. That simple.
What is this a creek family convention?
Closing the border will keep new illegals out. Preventing illegals from working will lead to the self deportation of those already here.
Using troops to protect the border is unconstitutional?
Thats right, you didn’t ask. You told me.
“Oh good grief.
Fight like a man.”
Then play by the rules we’re even. You’re welcome to go off defending Perry when you see an anit-Perry thread. Those are the rules.
“And when Mexico says ‘no’ to U.S. troops being in their country, what would President Perry do? Considering that he made this proposal with absolutely no evidence whatsoever that Mexico might want U.S. intervention kind of indicates that their feelings aren’t of prime importance to him.”
You give Mexico certain options, and it just may turn out that what Perry proposes is not so bad to them.
Have you read one thread of mine where I’m not accused of awful things — been insulted in some of the nastiest ways, or had the thread balled up with repeated disruptive photos or misinformation?
I don’t do that. So when I say something generic like I feel a poster is on the thread to disrupt effective dissemination of information and it causes you to go ballistic, it really is beyond the pale. It would be laughable, if it wasn’t so wrong.
It doesn’t mean we have to shut down trade but controlling the border does mean a virtual lockdown. In fact, doing so would probably cause Mexico to shut down trade which is fine with me if they want to starve themselves into fixing their own problems.
Fact is, sealing the pressure valve will force Mexico to deal with its problems one way or the other.
PLEASE explain the rules.
I have not been given the RULES.
Give me a LINK to the rules.
Does this only apply to Perry threads?
“I wouldnt put one single soldier in Mexico. I would put as many as necessary on the border and give them whatever they needed to stop illegal immigration.”
I think that would be my preference. Not only because of shutting off the immigration, but just as importantly, to shut off the drug flow. If the flow of drugs is essentially stopped, that obviates the need for any troops in Mexico.
I don’t think Mexico can deal with the problem. Of course that doesn’t mean America needs to do it for them.
It is in our interest to have a strong & friendly neighbor which we don’t have in Mexico. Sealing the pressure valve will likely result in a higher level of violence initially. Perhaps out and out war.
Sure. Any Mexican president is going to sign off on hordes of gringo troops crawling all over his country. What's not to like about that?
“Have you read one thread of mine where Im not accused of awful things been insulted in some of the nastiest ways, or had the thread balled up with repeated disruptive photos or misinformation?”
Sure. That’s how we work. Most of your comments are pasted in and it annoys people to have to keep reading the same things over and over. As to being called nasty things...I’ve had problems with Perry for 5 years now, and I’ve posted on them here. You should hear what I get called, especially in the beginning. That’s simply part of the game...there’s a lot of worked up people out there on all sides.
“I dont do that. So when I say something generic like I feel a poster is on the thread to disrupt effective dissemination of information and it causes you to go ballistic, it really is beyond the pale. It would be laughable, if it wasnt so wrong.”
I went ballistic, in part, because of what I had to deal with last night. I commented and actually supported Perry (in a snide way, of course), and then put in my TWO-WORD exception, which was, ready, “the borders”. For that I was screamed at and reported to Admin. So, yes, I do now have a thin skin and will not put up with people acting as thread police, when they don’t like a response (particularly if the response is short).
I could sign on to an idea like that. Unfortunately the Army and Marines are tied up at the moment. They're either deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan, just returned from Iraq or Afghanistan, or getting ready to deploy to Iraq or Afghanistan.
“PLEASE explain the rules.
I have not been given the RULES.
Give me a LINK to the rules.
Does this only apply to Perry threads? “
You’ve been here a decade, I have a feeling you know the rules and don’t need my help. I’ve also seen you get BLASTED by JR himself, so you obviously don’t have a problem ignoring those rules.
Common sense. Half the people there still hate us from the Mexican-American War. No Mexican president is going to allow U.S. troops into his country. Not if he wants to keep his office. And his head.
“Time for another Black Jack Pershing and a young Douglas MacArthur to invade Mexico and do the lousy Mexican governments job for them.”
Actually, you’re quite right.
Eventually, it will become our only option, to send troops down into Mexico to clean the place up.
Fearless prediction: if the Mexican government opposes, the Mexican army will last all of 20 minutes against American advances.
Cleaning out the drug gangs will take considerably more effort.
This is coming, folks, whether we like it or not.
Whether one likes or dislikes Mr. Perry, he spoke the truth on this issue.
I’d suggest that the security of our country is more dependent on what happens in Mexico than what happens in Afghanistan. Perhaps not 10 years ago, but certainly today.
Dependent enough to go to war with them?
But no fence! Not gonna happen. How are you going to seal it w/o a fence? His reason for not wanting to pay for a fence is going to be the same for putting boots on the ground at the border...who will pay for it?
He's just giving us lip sevice. We all heard Perry not back down from illegals paying in-state tuition and not wanting a fence. Let alone, saying AZ illegal immigration laws aren't for TX.
This guy isn't going to do any more to protect our border than Ah-nold did!
I want to learn all I can about these politicians, the bad, the beautiful and the detailed. These posts are useful to me in many, many ways.
For these efforts the posters are often scorned, belittled, even savaged for performing a service which I, for one, find invaluable....just because they favor a certain candidate.
I've never seen such a level of vitriol in the thirteen years I've been on this forum as that emanating from some of the slavish devotees of one candidate or another against someone supporting another candidate.
The hostility evinced toward a supporter of another candidate seems to trigger in some an innate rage and an urge to name-call and insult that is evident on almost every primary election thread now being posted on FR. This is shameful. But shame doesn't seem to enter into any equation any more.
It’s a contested Primary. One candidate has a lot of money and his supporters are getting tired of having to constantly answer for him, and wish we’d all just go away. But it’s politics. I think that most people can put aside the nasty stuff and still learn a lot of facts about the candidates, in order to make an informed choice.
Things will quiet down after the primary season, don’t worry about it.
No. You stated that there are rules about how you can post to different threads.
I am asking you to say what they are.
You said people can post one way on some threads and another way on other threads.
I’m asking you straight out to to tell me the rules.
What rules are for what kind of threads, which candidate threads, who posts the threads??? — how that works.
You are not a shrinking violet so let’s not get coy now.
If I am out of line, breaking rules, help me out. TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE!
lol lol lol Grow up. You know darn well the Israeli fence is doing a fantastic job...... Like all serious border fences it is patrolled and enforced by their military and the Israeli border agents. We do the same and we'll do great. Rick Perry should wise up and come out in favor of a border fence, otherwise he is toast! He is finished!
See this Israeli border fence. What's not to love! Wake up Rick Perry!
The same dynamic happens every election cycle, only (some of) the names change. Was also pretty interesting around the Harriet Miers nomination; and there is ample vitriol in the birther threads.
Not that you should do what I do, but vitriolic exchanges present an opportunity to do some independent fact-checking, and then deciding (without necessarily saying anything) which posters are spinning. That helps the reading filter chore for the long run.
Full quote: It may require our military in Mexico working in concert with them to kill these drug cartels and keep them off of our borders,
The US Government ofthen sent US Army patrols into Mexico during the Apache wars, and who can forget Ranald Mackenzie.
“Mackenzie was assigned to Fort Clark to put an end to the plunder of Texas livestock by Indian raiders from Mexico. On May 18, in an extralegal raid, he burned a Kickapoo village near Remolino, Coahuila , and returned with forty captives. That and effective border patrols stopped the raiding.
In late 1877 Indians from Mexico were again raiding in South Texas, and by March 1878 Mackenzie was again at Fort Clark. He began patrols and in June led an expedition into Mexico. His incursion prompted the Mexican government to act, and by October the raiding had ceased.
I do not post that way and it is interesting that BobL feels empowered to instruct me.
I'll forgive him (and forget) on the Texas instate college tuition if he will come out for a border fence and be sincere about it. Border fence along as much of the 1969 mile US-Mexico border as we need. In all the strategic places. Its a no brainer Rick Perry!! Snap out of it! Get off your Texas trip if you want to go nationwide for President!
Its interesting how you won’t tolerate anyone speaking out against perry. Its amazing how you ask for links on extremely well documented facts, ones included in threads you have posted.
Your agenda is obvious, and its not educating on candidates. Your agenda is pushing perry regardless of what he’s really done or his position on the issues.
I haven’t been here 10 years and I know the rules. They are available to read if you look.
To claim you are unaware after 10 years is dishonest.
“I do not post that way and it is interesting that BobL feels empowered to instruct me.”
You really don’t want me to link to the spectacle you made of yourself last August with no less than JimRob, do you? (I’m trying to be nice here)
“If I am out of line, breaking rules, help me out. TELL ME WHAT THEY ARE!”
Spare me the ignorance act, will you. You’re not fooling anyone.
I’m not trying to fool anyone.
If there are rules tell me.
I don’t know what they are.
If you can’t or refuse to, then there must be none or they’re kept unknown for a reason.
It has come to my attention that there are rules to posting to different threads and for different primary candidates. Please tell me which candidates are involved and in what manner.
I am being criticized for not knowing the rules.
Please tell me the rules regarding posts to threads.
Apparently there is a different set of rules for an anti-Perry thread as there is for a thread that I, a Perry supporter would post (that if it’s designated as an anti-Perry thread I can comment but otherwise I am not allowed to respond to a negative poster on a pro-Perry thread).
Please explain. I am not the only FReeper in the dark about this.
Is there a LINK? A thread that goes over this posting etiquette?
Thank you for your assistance.
The Governor uses the same term for the fence that you do: “strategic.”
We already have the river. The fence is only effective in urban areas, to slow down people when there are already lots of people around.
The fence only works where there are frequent patrols and response from near by. It does not work if theres no one to respond to breaches.
A fence is straight, the river curves back and forth. So, they build it inside the border, not on the border, giving up land that is US soil.
In the meantime, they cut off homes from the rest of the State, they deprive Texas farmers and ranchers their rightful access to their own property and to their water rights. This not only leaves wide swaths of the United States outside of normal defense, it makes it more expensive to run the farms, the ranches, and even regular households.
Thanks...then you need to learn from it.
You’re really full of yourself.
“Youre really full of yourself.”
Wow, you’re almost as thin-skinned as Perry. Welcome to the BIG LEAGUES - as you and Perry are learning, this isn’t state politics anymore, and it’s a lot harder finding yes-men for coronations at this level.
You guys have to EARN your way to the nomination, just like the others.
Like I said, you’re really full of yourself.
“Like I said, youre really full of yourself.”
You’ve been posting on Free Republic for many years. If you don’t understand how this site works or what the rules are by now we can’t help you.
According to your way of thinking, nasty name-calling, vile words, harrassing and personal attacks on other freepers (those comments that don't bother with addressing the issues) are okay with you....in fact, we should LOVE these low-life words and phrases because, according to you, "they open so many OPPORTUNITIES for us to....".....well, to do something or other that's supposed to be beneficial in your eyes....... I don't know quite what. I'm still wracking my brain.
However, you're entitled to your ethics-neutral views no matter how vicious the personal warfare is. I pointed out the ugly phenomenom being perpetrated by some freepers who will post ANYTHING that comes out of their feverish grey cells...and that's that.
I was disagreeing with that. I think the vitriol has been this bad before.
-- "they open so many OPPORTUNITIES for us to....".....well, to do something or other that's supposed to be beneficial in your eyes....... I don't know quite what. --
Independent research. Looking things up, digging for more detail, seeking "the truth."
Hotly contested statements and positions spark my curiosity.
-- However, you're entitled to your ethics-neutral views no matter how vicious the personal warfare is. --
I suggest that you do not know what my views are. I am confident in that, as my views are about as far from ethics neutral as one can find.
-- I pointed out the ugly phenomenom being perpetrated by some freepers who will post ANYTHING that comes out of their feverish grey cells...and that's that. --
As if the vitriol isn't obvious without being pointed out!
Anyway, I agree with the general observation that the level of vitriol is high. I make value judgments against the posters who engage in it.
Comparing apples to oranges?
He was talking about the drug cartels and violent criminals.
Also, it was 2 years ago that he said the quoted post.
Things have elevated to the level of war on the border since then thanks to President Obama.
Your talking about children of illegals who were brought over to Texas that have lived here almost all of their lives, have made good grades, stayed out of trouble and have committed no crime.